A top scholar says there are big holes in the big bang theory.

Babu Ranganathan writes:

Big Bang scientists extrapolate a hypothetical scenario from a few facts. Yes, some galaxies are expanding, moving further away, but this is not the case with the entire universe. There are galaxies in the universe running perpendicular to the rest of the galaxies. That’s contrary to Big Bang. If Big Bang really occurred, there should be a uniform distribution of gasses.

This uniform distribution of the gasses would have made sure that the gasses would not have coalesced, due to gravitational attraction, into planets and stars. The hypothesis of dark matter providing enough gravitational force has been recently discredited.

“The (galactic) structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM (Cold Dark Matter) did exist, it could not account for their formation” (Dr. Duane T. Gish, “The Big Bang Theory Collapses”). Furthermore, an explosion cannot explain the precise orbits and courses of thousands of billions of stars in thousands of billions of galaxies.

Some evolutionary astronomers believe that trillions of stars crashed into each other leaving surviving stars to find precise orderly orbits in space. Not only is this irrational, but if there was such a mass collision of stars then there would be a super mass residue of gas clouds in space to support this hypothesis. The present level of residue of gas clouds in space doesn’t support the magnitude of star deaths required for such a hypothesis. And, as already stated, the origin of stars cannot be explained by the Big Bang because of the reasons mentioned above. It is one thing to say that stars may decay and die into random gas clouds, but it is totally different to say that gas clouds form into stars.

Most people don’t realize how much disagreement there is among evolutionary scientists concerning their own theories. The media doesn’t report those details, at least not to any substantial extent.

Read the author’s recent collage of creationist evidences: The Science Supporting Creation

 Read the author’s recent collage of creationist evidences: The Science Supporting CreationExcellent articles written by scientists who are creationists may be accessed at The Institute for Creation Research site at: www.icr.org.The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor’s degree with concentrations in theology and biology and has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who In The East.” The author’s writings may be accessed at www.religionscience.com.
(Visited 514 times, 1 visits today)


  1. It's been apparent since shortly after big bang proponents put forth this theory that it didn't hold water. Scientists would have us believe that the big bang happened 13.5 billion years ago, but the physical characteristics of the universe, TIME being one of them, didn't exist until AFTER the big bang. A mind numbing paradox.

  2. You only need a 9th grade education to falsify this. If you seriously believe any of this, you should consider yourself retarded and/or gullible.

  3. Until Physicists stop trying to have a 'flat universe with it linear trajectory of light' and it is finally understood that light curves and this is figured into the process, all theories are going to be wrong. It is the structure of the minimal particles, themselves, that determine this curved nature. Once you understand that all movement in the universe is curved, you can make sense of what is going on.

    Sound simple? It is also mathematical, "Straight lines are interior, only, constructs of the unit circle. No straight line exists independently outside of some primogenitor circle" – but no one seems to care what mathematics says. We live in that "Dark Age lit only by the light of a perverted science" that Churchill talked about.

  4. The absence of friction and high energy level in the universe should cause all planets to rotate and orbit in the same direction due to the spinning nature caused by the ball in the "big-bang",yet uranus rotates a different direction to any other planet,the big-bang theory breaks laws of sceince,do your research and you'll see

  5. if the entire universe was condensed into one, it seems like it would probably create a more intense version of a black hole and we we have no evidence suggesting that a blackhole can explode and still don't even understand what a black hole. ALSO, we can only gather information from so far into the universe, how are we to even know if the movement of the galaxies as a whole is not effected by something greater beyond them. I'm not saying the big bang theory is WRONG but its deffinently more of a hypthesis than a theory

  6. The BB is impossible! How could the Ultimate Black Hole, explode with such force that allowed it to expand at many times the speed of light. With every speck of energy and matter radiating from a central point emerging at completely separate times and trajectories (even though trillionths of a second and trillionths of a degree in separation). Then slow to sub-light speeds and then condense into stars and planets,etc. Breaks every law of thermodynamics known.

    • Everything you have just stated is completely erroneous. Matter was not concentrated on one point. There was NO explosion ( there was an inflationary epoch , rapid expansion ) and nothing radiated from a designated point. The Theory of General Relativity and FTL travel did not apply to the expansion of the universe because no information was transmitted, and hence, FTL is completely viable.

  7. Because physics in space doesn't exit right? There is no way that over billions of years something might bump into something else changing the direction?

  8. I think the big bang theory was made by space monkeys that lived in a different universe and then my made this one so they could live by their self's

  9. It's not a mind numbing paradox. The expansion theory says that the universe was very small and grew in size. This theory became known as the "Big Bang" theory, despite the fact that it wasn't aout an expolsion (not in the traditional way like you know it). Also let's say there was and explosion, a "Big Bang". Time itself (part of space-time) was created when the "Big Bang" started. not after. No mind numbing paradox here. You're just desperate for attention.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.